158 replies to this topic

[Skydrive]

I'm actually surprised noone brought this up. If they were to bring in RnR back into the game right now, they would unintentionally make it P2W. People would be using premium time while running a Firebrand, Misery, or a Heavy Metal. Firebrands would be using Gauss Rifles and/or PPC's. Misery's would be using be using both, and so would the Heavy Metal. There hero CBill bonus and the Premium Time would give them huge profits even if there mechs were destroyed.

So before that happens, PGI would probably have to limit what weapons can go into what mechs, and how many, and add the multiple energy weapon heat penalty.

FYI, back in Closed Beta, when RnR was around, I remember there was a few times I went bankrupt due to some bad games, so to get enough CBills to repair my broken mechs, I would just take a Founders mech.

[SmoothCriminal]

R & R was a bad idea, because it literally limited what a player could do to modify their mech. When Artemis IV came out, my SRM costs were higher than an average win. Was just stupid.

[Purlana]

R&R was only pleasant for the energy boats. God forbid you wanted to use any sort of missile. If they brought R&R back it would be cheaper to run a PPC stalker then it is to run a Atlas D-DC brawler.

Edited by Purlana, 08 July 2013 - 08:16 AM.

[stjobe]

SmoothCriminal, on 08 July 2013 - 08:11 AM, said:

R & R was a bad idea, because it literally limited what a player could do to modify their mech.

We already have all kinds of limits on what a player can do to modify their 'mech. Can't put PPCs in a ballistic slot, just to take one example. Can't put ECM in the CT - and can't put it anywhere on most 'mechs.

So that's not really an argument against R&R.

SmoothCriminal, on 08 July 2013 - 08:11 AM, said:

When Artemis IV came out, my SRM costs were higher than an average win. Was just stupid.

Which is an argument for the system to be tweaked, not for removing it completely.

I don't think anyone arguing for R&R wants the old system back. We know it was broken in several different ways. However, that doesn't mean all R&R systems must be broken and bad.

• People AFKing has already been dealt with - they simply get no rewards.
  
• People not doing R&R could have been dealt with in two ways: Remove the 75% free R&R, and stop 'mechs from dropping without having done R&R. That also further discourages AFKers - you can't AFK if you can't drop.
  
• The system penalizing new and/or poor players could be dealt with by upping rewards and/or lowering R&R costs for the first 25 games or so (much like the Cadet bonus).
  
• Rewards could be tweaked so the likelihood of going in the red would be low if you ran a somewhat upgraded 'mech (a fully tier2 mech - ES, FF, DHS, XL engine, Artemis etc - should be expensive to run, but it shouldn't necessarily lose you money)
  
• Finally, individual costs could be tweaked infinitely to get the balance right between ammo-dependent weapons and energy weapons.

I'm not saying this would work, I'm just saying that the options aren't just "go back to the old R&R" or "have no R&R" - there's a third option; a new R&R.

Edited by stjobe, 08 July 2013 - 08:29 AM.

[Purlana]

What would be the end result of having R&R brought back? (Besides lowering earnings) If you want to balance weapons by using R&R, all you are doing is making the game Pay to win...

Edited by Purlana, 08 July 2013 - 08:32 AM.

[MustrumRidcully]

Skydrive, on 08 July 2013 - 08:08 AM, said:

I'm actually surprised noone brought this up. If they were to bring in RnR back into the game right now, they would unintentionally make it P2W. People would be using premium time while running a Firebrand, Misery, or a Heavy Metal. Firebrands would be using Gauss Rifles and/or PPC's. Misery's would be using be using both, and so would the Heavy Metal. There hero CBill bonus and the Premium Time would give them huge profits even if there mechs were destroyed.

So before that happens, PGI would probably have to limit what weapons can go into what mechs, and how many, and add the multiple energy weapon heat penalty.

FYI, back in Closed Beta, when RnR was around, I remember there was a few times I went bankrupt due to some bad games, so to get enough CBills to repair my broken mechs, I would just take a Founders mech.

Skydrive, on 08 July 2013 - 08:08 AM, said:

I'm actually surprised noone brought this up. If they were to bring in RnR back into the game right now, they would unintentionally make it P2W. People would be using premium time while running a Firebrand, Misery, or a Heavy Metal. Firebrands would be using Gauss Rifles and/or PPC's. Misery's would be using be using both, and so would the Heavy Metal. There hero CBill bonus and the Premium Time would give them huge profits even if there mechs were destroyed.

So before that happens, PGI would probably have to limit what weapons can go into what mechs, and how many, and add the multiple energy weapon heat penalty.

FYI, back in Closed Beta, when RnR was around, I remember there was a few times I went bankrupt due to some bad games, so to get enough CBills to repair my broken mechs, I would just take a Founders mech.

That's a good example of how RnR doesn't solve balance problems, it just turns them into P2W.

You could try to avoid this, but this requires changing what Founder, Premium and Hero bonuses do. Which is not likely to happen.

[Inkarnus]

there are always ways to go around problems in every system
just saying by default a system is bad because you
saw a glimps of a unfinished sytem and bash on it is
redicules.

sure it has its drawbacks
but it has it stronger points too(if it is implementet right)

Lets guess that you have an ecosystem were light medium mechs dominate in number:
-matches are faster over
-OP builts can be overrun
-OP builts cost a lot more to repair and replace to discourage there use
-equals OP builts are lesser around
no ******* QQ of lights and meds to see everywhere PPCs and Sniper meta and no brawling and diversity

thats is what you can archieve with RandR and Heatpenalties
I DONT SAY TAKE AWAY FROM THE PLAYER give him abase income
he cant lose but a income that can be gradually scale better than now
if you perform good.
take as less tonnage and as less "OP" stuff as possible.

Thats my point whats wrong with that thought?
more fun for all except the ppl just running sniper meta 3erppc 732 lander for the lulz?

Edited by Inkarnus, 08 July 2013 - 09:07 AM.

[Purlana]

Inkarnus, on 08 July 2013 - 09:05 AM, said:

thats is what you can archieve with RandR and Heatpenalties
I DONT SAY TAKE AWAY FROM THE PLAYER give him abase income
he cant lose but a income that can be gradually scale better than now
if you perform good.
take as less tonnage and as less "OP" stuff as possible.

Thats my point whats wrong with that thought?

Because it doesn't change the Meta at all, it only changes income. Poor players take weaker mechs, rich players dominate the field. Pay 2 win.

[Livewyr]

Moar PPCS!!!!!

[Inkarnus]

Purlana, on 08 July 2013 - 09:08 AM, said:

Because it doesn't change the Meta at all, it only changes income. Poor players take weaker mechs, rich players dominate the field. Pay 2 win.

Why the richer players will still lose money and at some point he will see that his MONEY is gone
instead as of now growing and growing

Edited by Inkarnus, 08 July 2013 - 09:17 AM.

[Purlana]

Inkarnus, on 08 July 2013 - 09:17 AM, said:

Why the richer players will still lose money and at some point he will see that his MONEY is gone
instead as of now growing and growin

That depends on the prices. But with premium time and hero mech bonuses the prices would have to be very high indeed...

Edited by Purlana, 08 July 2013 - 09:22 AM.

[FupDup]

Inkarnus, on 08 July 2013 - 09:17 AM, said:

Why the richer players will still lose money and at some point he will see that it is gone
instead as of now growing and growin

It would be pretty hard for rich players to lose money if they keep steamrolling over every enemy they encounter who can't afford to run basic things like DHS. In fact, it actually makes builds like the 4 PPC Stalker even more powerful because their competition is so vastly inferior to them. Rememer, winning nets a lot more money than losing does; especially if the winners don't get damaged very much at all.

And, of course, I can guarantee you that most people running powerbuilds would befriend other powerbuilders and completely rickroll everyone.

Edited by FupDup, 08 July 2013 - 09:20 AM.

[Purlana]

FupDup, on 08 July 2013 - 09:20 AM, said:

Rememer, winning nets a lot more money than losing does; especially if the winners don't get damaged very much at all.

And, of course, I can guarantee you that most people running powerbuilds would befriend other powerbuilders and completely rickroll everyone.

Indeed, if you use a superior build and win without dying guess what? You don't need to replace the PPCs!

[Ghogiel]

^It would basically encourage the 4PPC STK build. It would be relatively cheap to repair in the grand scheme of things, STD engine, no ferro, endo or ammo, its a sniper build that usually takes waaay less damage than any brawler on the field. etc

[Caviel]

Posting the same list, again, that I put in all of these "bring back R&R threads":

-There is no fundamental difference between making 150,000 C-Bills after a win no R&R, and making 200,000 C-Bills after a win with a 50,000 C-Bill R&R bill.

-Lowering the match earnings as a result of R&R just introduces an artificial grind to earn C-Bills, an already big enough problem for new players that they implemented the new pilot rewards. Worst case it will punish new players with poor equipment by drastically reducing earned money from losing most of their first matches since they are learning the game.

-Unless match rewards start to get into the millions instead of tens or hundreds of thousands (Causing massive inflation), you have to prop up R&R by granting a percentage of free repairs. Otherwise you would have to play 10-20 matches in a trial mech just to earn enough to repair a Commando to play in a single match and potentially lose and be doomed to repeat the cycle.

-R&R encouraged players to suicide in non-repaired mechs as a way to net more money after matches. This is unfair to the team now down a player that is willfully choosing not to participate in the match.

-Unless you scale the amount earned based on the mech weight class, you will unfairly punish larger mech players. Any functionality that artificially restricts how players can choose to play the game is generally a bad one.

stjobe, on 08 July 2013 - 08:28 AM, said:

People AFKing has already been dealt with - they simply get no rewards.

It was not people AFKing that was a problem, it was people suiciding by running out of bounds, or jumping on the nearest opposing Assault mech with an unrepaired mech.

Quote

People not doing R&R could have been dealt with in two ways: Remove the 75% free R&R, and stop 'mechs from dropping without having done R&R. That also further discourages AFKers - you can't AFK if you can't drop

The system penalizing new and/or poor players could be dealt with by upping rewards and/or lowering R&R costs for the first 25 games or so (much like the Cadet bonus).

This only hurts new players, I don't really need much for C-Bills at this point in the game.

Quote

Rewards could be tweaked so the likelihood of going in the red would be low if you ran a somewhat upgraded 'mech (a fully tier2 mech - ES, FF, DHS, XL engine, Artemis etc - should be expensive to run, but it shouldn't necessarily lose you money)

Finally, individual costs could be tweaked infinitely to get the balance right between ammo-dependent weapons and energy weapons.

All of which can be avoided by a P2W process of buying an AS7-K for MC, then selling it for C-Bills.

Quote

I'm not saying this would work, I'm just saying that the options aren't just "go back to the old R&R" or "have no R&R" - there's a third option; a new R&R.

When you can figure out a new R&R process that equally impacts veteran/economically established players as much as new players, and can't be circumvented by P2W processes of selling MC purchased mechs to offset artificial C-Bill costs, I'm all ears.

[Warge]

Ozric, on 08 July 2013 - 04:29 AM, said:

RnR was so bad, so very very bad.

In RnR-times I played Commando mechs. And u now what? There were no problems with gaining c-bills. Got the point?

[Purlana]

Warge, on 08 July 2013 - 09:33 AM, said:

In RnR-times I played Commando mechs. And u now what? There were no problems with gaining c-bills. Got the point?

Force new players to use mechs that they may hate or suck at. Yay?

[Thundercles]

Sure, bring back RnR. Just pray you don't drop against these two...

[Nubsternator]

Kobold, on 07 July 2013 - 02:08 PM, said:

REMINDER: Economics never balances game play.

It does when it makes people NOT play assault mechs every match. We b!tch because we don't see medium mechs at all anymore, but no one complains about rolling in c-bills with nothing to spend it on. Assaults were expensive to play for good reason. Maybe if people learned to deal with having to have a cost to pay for running their most expensive build there wouldn't be big issues here.

Light and Medium mechs seriously cost little to repair and rearm. You MADE money by playing those mechs. Yea, it's harder to play and win in a lighter mech, but it actually PREVENTED people from playing assaults EVERY MATCH. You took punishment in an assault or a heavy, and you payed the price for it (literally).

This game needs major changes if the game is going to balance out some of these major flaws. By major, i mean game-changing.

Purlana, on 08 July 2013 - 09:36 AM, said:

Force new players to use mechs that they may hate or suck at. Yay?

No, force EVERYONE to play those mechs.

Edited by Nubsternator, 08 July 2013 - 09:39 AM.

[Thundercles]

Nubsternator, on 08 July 2013 - 09:37 AM, said:

It does when it makes people NOT play assault mechs every match. We b!tch because we don't see medium mechs at all anymore, but no one complains about rolling in c-bills with nothing to spend it on. Assaults were expensive to play for good reason. Maybe if people learned to deal with having to have a cost to pay for running their most expensive build there wouldn't be big issues here.

Light and Medium mechs seriously cost little to repair and rearm. You MADE money by playing those mechs. Yea, it's harder to play and win in a lighter mech, but it actually PREVENTED people from playing assaults EVERY MATCH. You took punishment in an assault or a heavy, and you payed the price for it (literally).

This game needs major changes if the game is going to balance out some of these major flaws. By major, i mean game-changing.



No, force EVERYONE to play those mechs.

Actually, since a lot of lights and mediums take advantage of XL engines, they were as much, if not more expensive to repair than heavies and assaults that weren't as reliant on speed (and thus XLs).